The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-06-16

finished the half would not have beef
told. Unhappily, though, it is not neces
sary that I should dwell on the evil
Alas | the most of you are too familia
with this phase of the subject. Tn
more important thing for us to conside
is the remedy.
| I wish I had the time to recite il
detail the history of the temperance re
formation. 1t has been by very gradua
evolution that it has reached its presen
advanced state, afording striking il
lustration Of saying quoted from Her
bert Spencer:
| People never go right till they have
tried all possible ways Of going wrong.
To give very hasty resume of it, al
general effort at first was directed agains
the too free use of ardent spirits. Th'
opinion was, if people would only us'
them in moderation, they would be
benefit to them. They bad yet to learr
the lesson, which has long since beer
learned, that poison is in any portion o
spirits. One of the early pledges reae
somewhat as follows:
| I hereby pledge myself not to use t.
excess ardent spirits, and if should bt
found intoxicated Fourth of July ant
muster days excepted), l promise % pay
the sum of % cents.
It was not a great while, however, til
it was found people could, or would, no
use ardent spirits in moderation and so
step in advance was taken, and men were
pledged to abstain from all distilled
liquors.
at this stage, they believed alcoho
was not to be had by brewing or fermen
tation, but was the result of distillatior
alone, and hence beer and wine were no
put under the ban. But again, it die
not take long to demonstrate that mer
could and would get as drunk on wine
and beer as on brandy and whiskey
Hence, temperance societies took anothe
step in advance, and absolutely prohib
tied to their members the use in any de-
gree of all distilled and spirituous liquors
They worked hard to reform drunkards
but finding this, in most cases, hopeless
task thew turned their attention TO til,
effort of saving the young. Yet, in spit
of all they could do, the liquor traffic in
creased, and drunkenness increased.
The first legislation was in the form o
laws forbidding its sale 10 minors and t.
intoxicated persons. Next they began
in some places, to try the effect of higl
license, and in others, that of loca
option. Last of all there sprang up tn
prohibition movement, which has as it
ultimate object national prohibition!
amendment to the constitution, forbid
ding the manufacture and sale of th'
accursed stuff, in any form, in any of th
States or Territories of our government
I am glad we have reached this highes
point at last, for this is the only va.
possible to render obedience 20 the spiri
of the text, which cries, "Woe unto hin
that giveth his neighbor drink, that put
test thy bottle to him, and makest hin
drunken"
In coming now directly to the discus
sion of the prohibition question:
1. I raise the question, Is the principl
a right one? There are those VIII
gravely tell us that State has no righ
to forbid the sale of liquor within it
bounds. If, by right, they mean tn
legal right, the question is one that is no
debatable, for again and again has j
been decided by the highest courts of tn
land. There was test case made a
early as 1915, when, in number o
towns in Massachusetts, the civil author
tiles refused to grant license for the sal
of spirits, and the dealers, claiming the.
could sell under authority from the gen
eral government, carried the matter t
the Supreme Court of the United States
retaining Hon. Daniel Webster and Hon
Rufus E. Choate as counsel. If any tw
men of the country could have CARRIE
their point, it would have been Mr.. Web
ster and Mr.. Choate; but the decision
was unanimously against their clients
and I now give you some extracts fron
the opinions of some of the judges.
Said Chief Justice Taney:
If any State deems the retail and inter
nal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to it
citizens, and calculated to produce idle
ness and debauchery, / see nothing il
the Constitution of the United States t
prevent them from regulating or restrain
ing the traffic, or prohibiting it altogeth
er, if it thinks proper.
Justice Grier said:
The police power, which is e1clusivel
in the State, is competent to the correc
ton of these great evils, and all measure
of restraint OK prohibition, are within th
scope of that authority.
Justice Mclean declared:
A State may, in the exercise of tbs
great, and conservative police powel
which Pies at the foundation of its proi
perity, prohibit the sale of it liquor
These opinions, again and again, hay
been reaf6rmed. The tax imposed upo
the liquor traffic was not intended, orig
nally, for revenue, but for restriction
and the right to restrict and control,
any extent, carries with it the right ais
to prohibit. Therefore, it is folly to tai
about the legality of prohibition.
But even if it is legally right, som
seem to think it is morally wrong. The
feel it is species of samptuary legislt
tion. 1t is taking away the rights of th
individual. No such thingl DR.. He
rick Johnson has an admirable papt
upon this subject, which first appeared j
the December number of the Romiht
Revie,O, for 1885, and has since bee
published in tract form. he shows thi